Son v. Reina Bijoux

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J.

OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Hyunmi Son ("Son") brings suit against her former employer, Reina Bijoux, Inc., Bijoux World, Inc., Jien Youn, Inhee Park and Sung Min Kim (collectively, "Defendants") alleging discrimination on the basis of race and unlawful retaliation in violation of section 1981 ot Title 42 of the United Sttes Code, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law. Son alleges that her statutory rights were violated as a result of racial discrimination and retaliatory discharge arising out of her employment. Additionally, Son alleges that the defendants owe her for unpaid overtime and liquidated damages under the FLSA.

Defendants now move to dismiss Son's first cause of action, for racially discriminatory conduct in violation of section 1981, and Son's third cause of action, for retaliation in violation of the FLSA. For the following reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

Son, a Korean-born female, is a former employee of the defendants.*fn2

She was hired in August 2010 to serve as a book-keeper and in-house
bill collector for the defendants' jewelry business.*fn3
Defendants are Korean-born residents of the United
States.*fn4 Son alleges that "despite Plaintiff's
unblemished work history during the time she was employed by
Defendants, Defendants came to view Plaintiff negatively due to her
unwillingness to conform to Defendants' stereotypes about Koreans and
their actual or alleged willingness to provide their employers the
'courtesy' of additional work without being paid."*fn5
Son alleges that the defendants "were so comfortable exploiting
Koreans . . . that they required their
Korean employees to work overtime without compensation even more often
than they required their Hispanic employees . . . to work overtime
without compensation."*fn6

When Son began her employment, she was to receive $400 per week, or
$10 per hour for a 40-hour work week.*fn7 In October
2010, she began to receive $500 per week, or $12.50 per
hour.*fn8 Throughout her employment, Son was expected
to work a substantial amount of overtime, for which she was not
compensated.*fn9 By January 2011, Son was working
approximately 12.5 hours of overtime per week without
compensation.*fn10 On January 25, 2011, Sung Min Kim,
the store's manager, informed Son that in addition to these 12.5
uncompensated hours per week, she would from then on be required to
work Saturdays without additional compensation.*fn11
When Son protested, Kim informed her that she would be terminated if
she insisted on being compensated for working overtime.*fn12
During this conversation, Kim intimated that "even though overtime may be
paid by other employers, the non-payment of overtime is something
Koreans understand and accept."*fn13

The next day, January 26, 2011, Son met with both Kim and Jien Youn,
the store's owner and General Manager.*fn14 She
recorded each of these conversations with her cellular
phone.*fn15 Son later had these conversations
translated from Korean to English and transcribed by an independent
certified translation service.*fn16 When Son asked Kim
why she was required to work on Saturdays without pay, Kim stated,
"[T]hat is why we work with Koreans. . . . Koreans understand each
[sic] about this kind of courtesy."*fn17 When Son
asked Youn the same question, she stated, "That is why we hire
Koreans. . . . [R]egular hours are Monday through Friday, but when
busy, employees should come to work to prepare a show. There is no
additional pay."*fn18 During the course of
these meetings, Youn and Kim terminated Son's employment.*fn19
Youn then refused to allow Son to work through the week and
informed her that she was required to leave that day.*fn20

III. LEGAL STANDARD

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court evaluates the sufficiency of the complaint under the "two-pronged approach" suggested by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.*fn21

First, a court "'can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.'"*fn22

"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to withstand a motion to dismiss.*fn23 Second, "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief."*fn24 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must meet a standard of "plausibility."*fn25 A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."*fn26

Plausibility "is not akin to a probability requirement;" rather, plausibility requires "more than a sheer possibility that a ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.